Inspection
 Kevin;
 
    By past experience, the best thing is assure that the component is placed correctly at pick and place equipment. Nor visual inspection neither testing will give you 100% coverage.
    At least one drawing with component location should be provided to pick and place machine verification for the first board.
 
 Thanks
 
   
-----Original Message-----
From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of PERALTA, Kevin (BREA)
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [TN] Inspection

We have a situation at our facility in which I feel two inspectors are correct from two perspectives. I would like to ask members to submit situations and, or fixes to the following:

IPC-A-610 does not mention acceptance criteria for component location & identification for components that are too small to identify (e.g.; SMT). One inspector does not want to accept something by faith, and there's no callout for the ID of a component on an electronic assembly that is too small to identify on our blueprint. He would like to reject them, and let MRB disposition the rejection, which I feel is correct.

Our other inspector will still accept the assembly on the basis that testing will confirm if the component is the correct or incorrect one.

From a production supervisor's perspective, the latter is preferred. But, from a Quality perspective, the former process should be followed. There is no mapped out process for this situation. I actually had an engineer tell one of our inspectors, "that if it was the wrong component, it would not fit in it's place on the assembly" (I think we shipped him off to Alaska)!

I'd appreciate any response sent to me, and would invite any questions concerning such situations. Thank you!


Kevin L. Peralta
Class "A" Instructor
Senior Quality Systems Analyst
TRW Aeronautical/Lucas Aerospace